If you walk into a philosophy department today, you'll hear plenty about Thomas Aquinas. You might even hear a bit about Duns Scotus or William of Ockham if the professor is feeling particularly adventurous. But mention John of St. Thomas, and you'll likely get a blank stare, even from people who should know better. It’s a weird oversight. Honestly, it’s like being a physics buff and never hearing about Maxwell just because you’re too busy focusing on Newton.
John of St. Thomas—born João Poinsot in 1589—was basically the "last of the Mohicans" for the great Scholastic tradition. He wasn't just some guy copying Aquinas's homework. He was a powerhouse who took 13th-century ideas and stretched them to fit a world that was rapidly changing around him. We're talking about a man who lived through the transition from the Renaissance into the early modern era, holding the line for a very specific, very rigorous way of thinking.
Why John of St. Thomas Still Matters
Most people think of medieval philosophy as a dusty, dead thing. They're wrong. The stuff João Poinsot was writing about—specifically his work on signs and logic—is actually the precursor to modern semiotics. He was trying to figure out how we know what we know. How does a word in your head connect to a tree in the park? It sounds simple, but once you start digging, it’s a rabbit hole that never ends.
He was a Dominican. That's a big deal because it meant he was part of the Order of Preachers, the same group Aquinas belonged to. He taught at the University of Alcalá in Spain, which was basically the Harvard of its day. He wasn't some hermit in a cave; he was the confessor to King Philip IV of Spain. Imagine being the guy who has to listen to the sins of the most powerful monarch in the world and then go back to your room to write a 500-page treatise on the nature of "second intentions." That's a wild life.
The Man Behind the Name
He didn't start as John of St. Thomas. He took that name because he was so obsessed with the teachings of Thomas Aquinas that he wanted his entire identity to be swallowed up by that lineage. It’s a level of humility—or maybe just intense branding—that we don't really see anymore.
His life was defined by a massive output of work. We have the Cursus Philosophicus (his philosophy course) and the Cursus Theologicus (his theology course). These aren't pamphlets. They are massive, multi-volume sets that weigh more than a small dog. He wrote in Latin, of course, because that was the "LinkedIn" of the 17th century. If you wanted to be taken seriously by the intelligentsia from Rome to Paris, you wrote in Latin.
The Logic of the Sign: His Greatest Hit
If you really want to understand John of St. Thomas, you have to look at his Tractatus de Signis (Treatise on Signs). This is where he gets truly brilliant. He argues that a sign isn't just a "thing" that points to another "thing." Instead, he sees it as a relation.
👉 See also: Why People That Died on Their Birthday Are More Common Than You Think
Think about it this way.
Smoke is a sign of fire. But the smoke doesn't have to be there for the fire to exist. The relationship exists in the mind of the observer who understands the connection. Poinsot distinguished between "natural signs" (like smoke/fire) and "conventional signs" (like the word "dog" representing a furry animal). He was obsessed with the idea that our thoughts themselves are "formal signs." Basically, your concept of a chair is a sign that leads your mind to the actual reality of a chair.
Why this is kind of a big deal for us today
Modern linguists like Ferdinand de Saussure and semioticians like Charles Sanders Peirce are often credited with "inventing" the study of signs in the 19th and 20th centuries. But if you read John of St. Thomas, you realize he was already there 300 years earlier. He had a more robust framework because he grounded it in "being." He didn't think signs were just social constructs or linguistic games; he thought they were the bridge between the human mind and the objective world.
He was fighting against the rising tide of "nominalism"—the idea that universal categories are just names we make up. Poinsot said, "No, the world has a structure, and our signs are our way of participating in that structure."
A Life of Extreme Discipline
It’s easy to forget that these guys weren't just brains in jars. Poinsot lived a life of intense Dominican regularity. He woke up at 3:00 AM for Matins. He fasted frequently. He lived in a community where silence was the default. This kind of environment creates a specific type of focus. You don't write thousands of pages of dense metaphysical analysis if you're getting pinged by notifications every five minutes.
His contemporaries called him the "second Thomas." That’s a massive title. It’s like being called the "next Michael Jordan" while the original is still the gold standard. He took it seriously. He didn't want to innovate for the sake of being "new." He wanted to clarify. He wanted to take the seeds Aquinas planted and help them grow into a forest that could withstand the storms of the Enlightenment.
✨ Don't miss: Marie Kondo The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up: What Most People Get Wrong
The Conflict with Modernity
Poinsot lived right as the "Scientific Revolution" was starting to kick off. Descartes was doing his thing. The shift was moving away from "Why does this exist?" to "How does this work?"
John of St. Thomas stayed firmly in the "Why" camp. He believed that if you lose the "Why," the "How" eventually becomes meaningless. He saw the world as a sacramental place—a place where everything is a sign pointing toward a higher reality. For him, a scientist studying a leaf and a theologian studying grace were looking at two different levels of the same truth.
One of the coolest things about his writing is how he handles objections. In the Scholastic style, you don't just state your opinion. You state the strongest possible version of your opponent's argument first. Then you dismantle it. Poinsot was a master of this. He would take the most cutting-edge critiques of his time and find a way to integrate or answer them using the tools of Aristotelian logic.
The Mystery of His Passing
He died in 1644. He was only 55. In an era where many of his peers lived into their 70s or 80s (despite the lack of modern medicine), 55 was a bit early. He was with the Spanish army in Fraga, serving the King, when he got sick. There’s something poetic about this high-level philosopher dying in a military camp. It’s a reminder that his ideas weren't just for classrooms; they were lived out in the messy, political, often violent world of the 17th century.
Common Misconceptions About His Work
People often lump him in with "Late Scholasticism" and dismiss it as "decadent." The narrative goes that philosophy got too complicated and started "counting angels on the heads of pins," which led to the need for people like Descartes to blow it all up.
That’s a lazy take.
🔗 Read more: Why Transparent Plus Size Models Are Changing How We Actually Shop
- "He was just a commentator." Wrong. He was a synthesizer. He took disparate threads of thought and wove them into a unified system.
- "His work is irrelevant to modern science." Actually, his work on the philosophy of nature provides a framework for understanding things like "emergence" and "formal causality" that modern biology is starting to reconsider.
- "It’s too hard to read." Okay, this one is kinda true. His Latin is clear, but the concepts are dense. You can't skim John of St. Thomas. You have to chew on him.
How to Actually Get Into His Writing
If you're brave enough to want to read him, don't start with the Cursus Theologicus. You'll drown.
Start with the Outlines of Formal Logic. There are some decent English translations out there, notably by Yves Simon and others from the mid-20th century. It’s a workout for your brain. It forces you to define your terms with a precision that we just don't use in everyday speech.
You'll find that once you start thinking in the categories Poinsot provides, the world starts to look a bit more organized. You stop seeing things as a chaotic jumble of atoms and start seeing the "teleology"—the purpose—behind them.
The Legacy of John of St. Thomas
In the 20th century, there was a brief "Thomistic Revival." Figures like Jacques Maritain and Étienne Gilson looked back to John of St. Thomas as a key guide for interpreting Aquinas. They realized that you can't really understand the "Angelic Doctor" without the "Deep Doctor" (another nickname for Poinsot) to act as a bridge.
Today, there’s a small but dedicated group of scholars keeping his work alive. They see him as a vital link in the "perennial philosophy." Whether you're interested in the history of ideas, the mechanics of how we use language, or the intersection of faith and reason, he’s a figure you can't ignore if you want the full picture.
Actionable Next Steps to Explore His Thought
If this sparked a bit of curiosity, don't just let it sit there. Philosophy is a verb, not a noun.
- Look up the "Tractatus de Signis." You don't have to buy the whole thing. Find a summary of his theory of signs. It will change the way you think about communication.
- Compare him to Descartes. Read a summary of Poinsot’s view of "intentions" and then read Descartes’ "Meditations." You’ll see the exact moment Western thought split into two different directions.
- Practice "Distinguishing." The Scholastic method relies on the "distinction." When you're in an argument, instead of just disagreeing, try to say, "I agree with your premise in this sense, but I deny it in that sense." It’s a John of St. Thomas move that de-escalates conflict and brings clarity.
- Check out the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology (DSPT) resources. They often have lectures or papers that reference his work in a way that’s accessible to non-academics.
John of St. Thomas wasn't just a man of his time; he was a man who understood the timeless. He reminds us that logic isn't just a tool for winning debates—it's a way of honoring the truth. It’s about making sure that the signs we use actually point us toward the reality we all share. In a world of "alternative facts" and "post-truth," that kind of 17th-century rigor feels more like a superpower than a relic.